Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied fromin-kernel, use it in more drivers.

[David Miller]

From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:12:24 -0400

> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > But since I wanted this tree to be uncontentious and obviously the
> > correct thing to do, I've dropped the drivers/net changes for now
> > anyway.
> > 
> > It's odd that this request has suddenly come out of the blue when we've
> > been using request_firmware() from modules for years already.
> 
> Why is it out of the blue to worry about a working driver suddenly 
> ceasing to work?
> 
> This has nothing to do with request_firmware() itself -- its about 
> having the infrastructure in place so that users do not notice the switch.

And I want to reiterate my adversion to the folks who keep saying
that being opposed to request_firmware() is just like being opposed
to modules.

That's is very far from the truth.

When module support was added, guess what?  I could still build a
completely static kernel image like I always could.

And in fact, to this day, that's what I personally do because that's
how I like my kernels.

But this request_firmware() change does not allow one to get what he
could get before, which is a completely self-contained driver module
object file.

This is the difference between providing an option and making
something mandatory.  This firmware split up is now mandatory.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/